Dennis Crouch says that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is "establishing satellite offices" and is planning to have another one [1] while Crouch at al moan about fake US patents being squashed [2]. Obviousness is law and fact, not either or...
The USPTO began establishing satellite offices a decade ago to expand beyond the traditional Alexandria (Washington DC) headquarters.€ We now have offices in Detroit, Dallas, Denver, and San Jose. Last year, Congress voted to further expand the decentralization by at least one more. The Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2022 (UAIA) mandates creation of a Southeast Regional Office (SERO).€ The USPTO is now seeking comments on where the office should be located — and the methodology it should use in selecting a location.€ [Fed Reg].
The statute requires that it be located in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, or Arkansas.€ I would automatically rule-out Virginia and North Carolina as too close to the PTO HQ; and also rule-out Arkansas as too close to the Dallas Office.€ In my mind, I quickly narrowed things down to four potential cities: Atlanta, Jacksonville, Miami, and Nashville.
Roku’s recently filed en banc petition begins with an intriguing statement: “What should have been a garden-variety substantial-evidence appeal has produced a dangerous obviousness precedent—one as far-reaching as it is misguided.”€ [Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Docket No. 22-01058 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc petition)]
An every day part of patent practice is arguing about whether a cited prior art reference teaches a particular claim limitation.€ That analysis is not always an easy task because prior art is often quite cryptic as are the patent claims being evaluated.€ One way to look at the process is an interpreting of the prior art to see if it teaches the claim.€ In that form, the process is seen a question of fact that must be based upon substantial evidence and reviewed with deference on appeal.€
When my business was sued for patent infringement, I was caught off guard. In my case, we happened to be the target of a baseless lawsuit from a larger competitor, but for many businesses in a similar situation, the lawsuit comes from a non-practicing entity (NPE).
On June 16, 2023, less than three weeks after Unified filed an ex parte reexamination, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified’s request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claim of U.S. Patent 8,228,910, owned by Entropic Communications, LLC, an NPE and a Fortress IP entity.
A new PATROLL contest, with a $2,000 cash prize, was added seeking prior art on at least claim 3 of U.S. Patent 9,807,564, owned by Context Directions LLC, a Jeffrey M. Gross entity. The ‘564 patent generally relates to a method for detecting context of a mobile device, and to a mobile device having a context detection module, especially to detect that the mobile device is located in a moving vehicle.
As part of an ongoing series examining the patent holders and pools erroneously designating patents as essential, we highlight U.S. Patent 9,277,243 titled “Methods and apparatus for in-loop de-artifact filtering.” This patent is owned by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. InterDigital has designated the ’243 patent as essential to the AV1 standard as a part of SISVEL’s AV1 Patent Pool. See AV1 Patent List, AV1 Family AV1-056, available at https://www.sisvel.com/images/documents/Video-Coding-Platform/PatentList_AV1.pdf.
On June 14, 2023, less than a month after Unified filed an ex parte reexamination, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified’s request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,085,845, owned by InterDigital VC Holdings.
As reported by Chinese and US magazines, the state-funded Japanese patent pool IP Bridge and Chinese electronics company TCL have concluded a global licensing agreement. This ends all current lawsuits around cellular, wireless communication and HEVC technology. IP Bridge and TCL face off In Europe, the two companies faced each other primarily in Germany.